When Kerry visits Egypt this weekend, he should focus on pushing for democratic reforms, not just economic ones.

Secretary of State John Kerry arrives at Tegel International Airport in Berlin, February 25, 2013. (Reuters)

U.S. President Barack Obama stood at a White House podium, echoing the pride of the Egyptian people's call for freedom in a speech on Feb. 11, 2011, the
same day that former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak finally relinquished power.

In his remarks, Obama told the world, "The United States will continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt. We stand ready to provide whatever assistance
is necessary--and asked for--to pursue a credible transition to a democracy."

In the two years since the beginning of Egypt's transition to democracy, nearly every point of inspiration delivered in Obama's speech suffered a major
setback. Even promises of U.S. assistance to Egypt remain only partially fulfilled at best. The most glaring gap in U.S. support to Egypt, however, lies in
the arena that can most significantly impact the democratic transition: support for liberals and liberal ideology. With news that newly appointed U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry would soon arrive in Egypt, expectations run high in the hopes that the Obama administration can move away from an
economy-based approach and instead engage in a new political strategy that supports the transition to democracy and fulfills the president's promise.

Kerry's visit offers an opportunity to revise and rebuild the U.S. relationship
with those who share its values.

Despite occasional threats from U.S. Congress, military assistance to Egypt remains immune to political developments. The Obama administration intensified
its efforts to support the Egyptian economy through development assistance and broad transition initiatives[t1] while driving support
for a loan from the International Monetary Fund. But the U.S. focus on the strategic relationship and economics in Egypt has left Egypt's liberals to fend
for themselves. Liberals include not only members of the opposition, increasingly viewed as unrepresentative of the revolution and its demands, but also
the local watchdog and civil society organizations. U.S. and E.U. officials regularly complained of the lack of a negotiating partner in the early days of
the transition, and that figure eventually arrived in the form of President Mohamed Morsi - and the Muslim Brotherhood, by extension. As the Egyptian
presidential elections came to a close, the Brotherhood had already begun its "charm offensive" in April 2012 to convince the White House and the U.S.
Congress of its support for the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and free-market credentials.

Confident that Morsi would abide by the terms of the treaty and maintain the strong U.S.-Egypt military relationship, the Obama administration remained
relatively subdued in its condemnation of anti-democratic developments, such as Morsi's August and November constitutional declarations that granted him unprecedented presidential powers. Only a
handful of U.S. officials remained adamant in their position to condition U.S. military and economic assistance to Egypt on positive democratic change,
despite Islamist majoritarian tendencies that repeatedly dashed hopes for a consensus-driven transition. The over-emphasis on a Morsi guarantee of Israeli
security endangers Egypt's political well-being and US interests more than Obama may recognize.

The start of the investigation against
foreign-funded non-government organizations in 2011, which brought about the highest tensions between Egypt and the United States in recent memory,
resulted in the most damaging consequences to Egypt's transition. Over the course of the two years since then, U.S. funding to civil society saw limited
disbursement as the targeting of activists increased, claims of torture at the hands of police returned, and electoral violations threatened the legitimacy
of state institutions.

The U.S. disengagement from democracy promotion in Egypt diminished the capacity for many NGOs to perform their duties, and the trial forced some groups to
keep a lower profile. Foreign NGO employees were eventually released, diffusing tension with the United States, but the ongoing criminal trial contributed to Obama's preference
for a light footprint in Egypt. The Obama administration's public statements remained muted in the face of grave breaches of public trust, such as Morsi's
rushed drafting and approval of the constitution, the return of police brutality in recent protests in Port Said and other cities, and the announcement of
elections without a clear law regulating them. Only a few of Morsi's missteps led to strongly-worded condemnation from the United States, such as his
delayed condemnation of an assault on the U.S. embassy during public protests and his recently revealed 2010 comments in which he
insulted Jews
.

Despite the lack of international support, many opposition leaders and NGOs continue to push for liberal values, and achieved some success in advancing
their agenda. Struggling to maintain a level of organization and coordination, the liberal political opposition nonetheless led the effort to discredit a
constitution many viewed as unfavorable to citizenship rights and a balanced government. With the support of mass popular protests in the streets from
ordinary citizens who have incorporated liberalism into their understanding of Egyptian politics, liberals succeeded in forcing Morsi to commit to a system
to amend the constitution. The recent backlash against Morsi's decision to impose a curfew and state of emergency in the canal cities of Port Said,
Ismailia, and Suez also forced Morsi to soften his position. The political opposition also obligated Morsi to consider a cabinet reshuffle and solicit
recommendations for changes to the elections law.

As state legitimacy dwindles in the eyes of the public, the search for a viable alternative provides for Egypt's liberal-minded politicians with a window
of opportunity. But that window will not remain open for long; it may already be closing as internal divisions translate into confusing messages to a
revolution-fatigued constituency and limited, but growing, calls for a return to military rule.

Egyptian opposition liberals and political parties may rebuff Secretary Kerry's outreach, but only due to the distrust that emerged from the U.S. position
that relied on the Morsi government as the sole conduit for bilateral ties. Kerry's visit offers an opportunity to revise and rebuild the U.S. relationship
with those who share its values. As witnessed with Mubarak's ouster on February 2011, the removal of the military leadership by decree last August, and the
crescendo of voices calling for Morsi to step down now, power in Egypt remains ephemeral. Liberal values and those who represent them can weather the
political storm and promote long-term stability that satisfies U.S. goals in the region, but not without help.

At minimum, Kerry should pressure Morsi to immediately register the NGOs facing trial and stress the importance of new law that allows rights organizations
to operate freely. A memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Egyptian government could also facilitate foreign funding to civil society groups to
promote good governance and democracy. Diplomatic outreach to liberal-minded parties should also rank high in priority, with particular care given to the
language used to prevent misunderstanding or distrust. Strategic concerns and economics alone, without the democratic legitimacy and strong liberal
tradition needed to cement it, are insufficient to ensure security or prosperity. Although liberals have kept a courageous front, they cannot hold the line
without the required assistance promised by Obama two years ago.

Most Popular

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer.

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer. Most of the U.S. territory currently has no electricity or running water, fewer than 250 of the island’s 1,600 cellphone towers are operational, and damaged ports, roads, and airports are slowing the arrival and transport of aid. Communication has been severely limited and some remote towns are only now being contacted. Jenniffer Gonzalez, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, told the Associated Press that Hurricane Maria has set the island back decades.

A small group of programmers wants to change how we code—before catastrophe strikes.

There were six hours during the night of April 10, 2014, when the entire population of Washington State had no 911 service. People who called for help got a busy signal. One Seattle woman dialed 911 at least 37 times while a stranger was trying to break into her house. When he finally crawled into her living room through a window, she picked up a kitchen knife. The man fled.

The 911 outage, at the time the largest ever reported, was traced to software running on a server in Englewood, Colorado. Operated by a systems provider named Intrado, the server kept a running counter of how many calls it had routed to 911 dispatchers around the country. Intrado programmers had set a threshold for how high the counter could go. They picked a number in the millions.

The greatest threats to free speech in America come from the state, not from activists on college campuses.

The American left is waging war on free speech. That’s the consensus from center-left to far right; even Nazis and white supremacists seek to wave the First Amendment like a bloody shirt. But the greatest contemporary threat to free speech comes not from antifa radicals or campus leftists, but from a president prepared to use the power and authority of government to chill or suppress controversial speech, and the political movement that put him in office, and now applauds and extends his efforts.

The most frequently cited examples of the left-wing war on free speech are the protests against right-wing speakers that occur on elite college campuses, some of which have turned violent.New York’s Jonathan Chait has described the protests as a “war on the liberal mind” and the “manifestation of a serious ideological challenge to liberalism—less serious than the threat from the right, but equally necessary to defeat.” Most right-wing critiques fail to make such ideological distinctions, and are far more apocalyptic—some have unironically proposed state laws that define how universities are and are not allowed to govern themselves in the name of defending free speech.

A growing body of research debunks the idea that school quality is the main determinant of economic mobility.

One of the most commonly taught stories American schoolchildren learn is that of Ragged Dick, Horatio Alger’s 19th-century tale of a poor, ambitious teenaged boy in New York City who works hard and eventually secures himself a respectable, middle-class life. This “rags to riches” tale embodies one of America’s most sacred narratives: that no matter who you are, what your parents do, or where you grow up, with enough education and hard work, you too can rise the economic ladder.

A body of research has since emerged to challenge this national story, casting the United States not as a meritocracy but as a country where castes are reinforced by factors like the race of one’s childhood neighbors and how unequally income is distributed throughout society. One such study was published in 2014, by a team of economists led by Stanford’s Raj Chetty. After analyzing federal income tax records for millions of Americans, and studying, for the first time, the direct relationship between a child’s earnings and that of their parents, they determined that the chances of a child growing up at the bottom of the national income distribution to ever one day reach the top actually varies greatly by geography. For example, they found that a poor child raised in San Jose, or Salt Lake City, has a much greater chance of reaching the top than a poor child raised in Baltimore, or Charlotte. They couldn’t say exactly why, but they concluded that five correlated factors—segregation, family structure, income inequality, local school quality, and social capital—were likely to make a difference. Their conclusion: America is land of opportunity for some. For others, much less so.

One hundred years ago, a retail giant that shipped millions of products by mail moved swiftly into the brick-and-mortar business, changing it forever. Is that happening again?

Amazon comes to conquer brick-and-mortar retail, not to bury it. In the last two years, the company has opened 11 physical bookstores. This summer, it bought Whole Foods and its 400 grocery locations. And last week, the company announced a partnership with Kohl’s to allow returns at the physical retailer’s stores.

Why is Amazon looking more and more like an old-fashioned retailer? The company’s do-it-all corporate strategy adheres to a familiar playbook—that of Sears, Roebuck & Company. Sears might seem like a zombie today, but it’s easy to forget how transformative the company was exactly 100 years ago, when it, too, was capitalizing on a mail-to-consumer business to establish a physical retail presence.

The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.

It is insufficient to statethe obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest for 2017, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17. The Grand Prize Winner will receive $10,000 (USD), publication in National Geographic Magazine and a feature on National Geographic’s Instagram account. The folks at National Geographic were, once more, kind enough to let me choose among the contest entries so far for display here. The captions below were written by the individual photographers, and lightly edited for style.

What the Trump administration has been threatening is not a “preemptive strike.”

Donald Trump lies so frequently and so brazenly that it’s easy to forget that there are political untruths he did not invent. Sometimes, he builds on falsehoods that predated his election, and that enjoy currency among the very institutions that generally restrain his power.

That’s the case in the debate over North Korea. On Monday, The New York Timesdeclared that “the United States has repeatedly suggested in recent months” that it “could threaten pre-emptive military action” against North Korea. On Sunday, The Washington Post—after asking Americans whether they would “support or oppose the U.S. bombing North Korean military targets” in order “to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons”—announced that “Two-thirds of Americans oppose launching a preemptive military strike.” Citing the Post’s findings, The New York Times the same day reported that Americans are “deeply opposed to the kind of pre-emptive military strike” that Trump “has seemed eager to threaten.”

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy sparred with Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar on CNN hours after their bill dismantling Obamacare appeared to collapse.

Ordinarily, you debate to stave off defeat. But for Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy on Monday night, the defeat came first.

By the time the two GOP senators stepped on CNN’s stage Monday night for a prime-time debate over their health-care proposal, they knew they had already lost.

A few hours earlier, Senator Susan Collins became the third Republican to formally reject the pair’s legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, effectively killing its chances for passage through the Senate this week. Graham and Cassidy had hoped to use the forum to make a closing argument for their plan, and to line it up against Senator Bernie Sanders and his call for a single-payer, “Medicare-for-All” health-care system. Instead, the two senators found themselves defending a proposal that was no less hypothetical—and probably much less popular—than Sanders’s supposed liberal fantasy.